Continuing on the theme of fishing for interesting statistics about past elections, let’s talk money.
The connection (or lack thereof) between fundraising and winning a party’s nomination has been examined at length. Instead, I’d like to focus on the general election. The question is simple: Does the candidate that raises more money win the general election?
As we all well know, campaign finance is a murky subject, and it only gets murkier the farther back in time you look. I was able to compile data on gross receipts back through the 1988 election, and I’ve linked to my source in the data below. Here are the findings:

Democratic Candidate
(Gross receipts)Republican Candidate
(Gross receipts)Winner
(Receipts difference; % difference)John Kerry
($328,479,245)George W. Bush
($367,228,801)George W. Bush
(+$38,749,556; +11%)Al Gore
($132,804,039)George W. Bush
($193,088,650)George W. Bush
(+$60,284,611; +31%)Bill Clinton
($41,697,305)Bob Dole
($57,840,610)Bill Clinton
(-$16,143,305; -28%)Bill Clinton
(~$71,000,000)George H.W. Bush
(~$62,400,000)Bill Clinton
(~+$8,600,000; ~+12%)Michael Dukakis
(~28,500,000)George H.W. Bush
(~$31,800,000)George H.W. Bush
(~+$3,300,000, ~+10%)Though there is scant data to work with, the pattern is pretty clear. Candidates who raise more money usually win the general election, Bill Clinton in 1996 being the only upset in recent history.
This bodes well for the race against John McCain. Currently, both Democratic candidates have been raising more cash than McCain(*)and McCain looks like he’s moving closer to accepting public financing on the heels of the petition Jane Hamsher and 31,000 others filed against him with the FEC. With the McCain campaign almost shutting down months ago due to money woes and his current cash deficit, it is unlikely Republicans will out-raise Democrats this cycle.
If that is indeed the case, the money stats say that Democrats should win the White House this fall.
(cross posted at MyDD)
</img> </img> </img>


(Source Link)